Debates of March 24th, 2000

Points Of Order

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would perhaps find consent but, at the request of the member for Scarborough Centre, I am truly pleased to table the tripartite protocol, which was once secret but is no longer.

I wish to table it. This might further the debate and the House could finally get to the bottom of the troubling Placeteco affair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Ah, this is an entirely different matter from the one we discussed.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, the Deputy Prime Minister urged me to quote the Auditor General of Canada properly, thus implying that I had misled the House and that I had attributed remarks to the auditor general that he had not made.

For the benefit of the House, I simply wish to say that what the auditor general told the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was this “In order to get to the bottom of things in such cases, a police investigation is always required”.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Ivan Grose, Liberal, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, and believe me in this case it is a great honour, to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 21, 2000, your committee has considered Bill C-23, an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

Canada Shipping Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a number of private members' bills that are intended to bring various Canadian acts in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am pleased to announce in the House today that the Minister of Transport has advised me that the amendment outlined in Bill C-374, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, definition of child and infant, were introduced in the other place as part of Bill S-17.

While I thank the minister for his effort and look forward to the quick passage of Bill S-17, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the order for second reading of Bill C-374 be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to the hon. member to withdraw the private member's bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

Petitions

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who call on parliament to recognize the fact that Canadians reject the legalization of the possession of child pornography. They ask the government to intervene in this matter to establish and strengthen the laws related to the possession of child pornography to ensure that it will never be legalized.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which calls on the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code in order to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in very exceptional circumstances.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition from people in my riding who are concerned about the increase in the incidence of breast cancer.

They call upon parliament to strike an independent committee that would be responsible for developing, implementing and maintaining control and quality standards for mammography in Canada.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Saskatchewan Farm Income Coalition group containing around 10,000 signatures.

The Saskatchewan farm families are among the most competitive farmers in the whole world. They are finding it very difficult to compete against foreign subsidies, primarily in the United States and Europe.

These thousands of Saskatchewan farm families are asking parliament to support them by immediately providing an additional $1 billion in agricultural trade equalization payments to Saskatchewan farmers.

Parliament should take note of this and make a special effort to help Saskatchewan in its time of need.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitioners who want the House to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present, in the presence of the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation, a petition signed by 445 people from Quebec, including from the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

The petitioners point out that rural carriers do not have access to collective bargaining to improve their pay and working conditions.

Too often, these workers earn less than the minimum wage and their working conditions are from an era that we thought was gone, whereas their colleagues from the private sector, who also deliver mail in rural areas, have access to collective bargaining, as do Canada Post Corporation employees.

The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal paragraph 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which deprives rural carriers of their right to collective bargaining.

It seems obvious to me that the government must act as soon as possible to put an end to this kind of discrimination against rural carriers.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the good people of Dewdney—Alouette. The first petition has to do with the high rate of taxes in Canada imposed by the Minister of Finance.

The petitioners ask the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes substantially, by 25% in the budget which was just brought down and in the next three budgets.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many petitioners in my riding who are asking the government to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which would provide for the exclusion of the reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and laws.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canada Labour Code

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for the Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to others acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to begin debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which addresses occupational health and safety.

The Government of Canada is committed to safety in the workplace and ensuring that Canadians live in healthy and safe communities.

This legislation also demonstrates our trust in the ability of federal employers and employees to recognize and solve their own health and safety problems together.

This bill makes important amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code. It is good social and economic policy because a safe workplace, combined with sound labour management relations and employee involvement in the decision making process, just makes good sense.

The bill is the second of the Government of Canada's three phase reform of the Canada Labour Code. The significant amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code communicate the Liberal belief that initiatives which promote a healthier and safe working environment, which foster sound labour management relations and which encourage employee involvement in decision making constitute not only good social policy but also good economic policy.

As members can appreciate, occupational health and safety issues are highly complex.

Part II of the code sets out a legislative framework for addressing those issues for employees who are within the federal jurisdiction.

The federal jurisdiction under Part II includes the federal public service, certain crown corporations, industries declared by parliament for the general advantage of Canada, such as grain handling and uranium mining, as well as industries which are international or interprovincial in scope, such as railroads, air traffic, pipelines, shipping, long-shoring, banking and telecommunications. The federal jurisdiction is representative of a core infrastructure that provides for key economic linkages both nationally and internationally.

Approximately 10% of the Canadian workforce is governed by the Canada Labour Code. Part II of the code defines the duties of both the employees and the employers. It also establishes three basic employee rights in the health and safety area: the right to know about hazards in the workplace and ways of dealing with them, the right to participate in correcting those workplace hazards, and the right to refuse work which the employee believes to be dangerous or unhealthy.

The code lays out a procedure to be followed in the event of a dangerous or unsafe workplace, and also defines the roles and responsibilities of workers, employers, workplace health and safety committees and safety officers. The legislation also sets out the processes and procedures to be exercised in enforcing those basic rights.

Workplaces have changed and will continue to change. Therefore, we must periodically review the code to ensure that it meets the social and economic needs of the day. The last amendments to Part II were made in 1985. Since that time both the federal government and stakeholder groups have identified areas of Part II in which changes need to be made.

The resulting amendments were formulated, first, to ensure that Part II continues to do what it is supposed to do, namely, protect workers; second, to align Part II with occupational health and safety regulations in other jurisdictions; and third, to modernize the Part II approach to occupational health and safety regulations.

What may be less obvious is that recent changes in the workplace have forced employers and employees to confront many new issues in the realm of workplace health and safety. For example, the proliferation of personal computers has forced us to pay closer attention to the ergonomic considerations needed to prevent or ameliorate repetitive strain injuries.

The bill not only addresses the human side of the equation, but also the economic side. Each year between 30 and 40 workers in the federal jurisdiction die on the job, and another 60,000 suffer occupational injuries or illnesses. That is one million lost workdays annually, nearly 5,000 person years, costing over $350 million in lost wages, medical aid, rehabilitation and disability pension payments.

In Canada significantly more workdays are lost each year due to injury than to strikes or lockouts. In 1995 occupational injuries and illnesses cost the Canadian economy almost $5 billion in workers' compensation payments. Studies indicate that the direct and indirect costs of occupational casualties comes to about $10 billion annually. This is a staggering financial burden, but it says nothing about the anguish and grief endured by those who have lost a loved one or those who have lost a limb or suffer a respiratory disease because of a workplace hazard.

If we could reduce the annual number of workplace injuries and deaths by just 1% we would realize a saving of approximately $11 million.

I do not mean to imply that Part II of the code is important for purely economic reasons. On the contrary, the code is an example of legislation which has far-reaching implications both socially and economically.

Occupational health and safety is a problem which we must face, and we must face it together—governments, employers, unions, workers and health professionals. Jointly we must attack the problem.

The Government of Canada has recognized that the time has come to make changes to Part II. The amendments contained in Bill C-12 are the result of extensive and exhaustive consultations, including the work that began in 1993 by a legislative committee composed of organizations representing employers and worker groups as well as officials of the federal labour program.

This committee was directed to develop proposed amendments based on the consensus of the parties involved. The process was not easy. The parties involved had to make difficult compromises on individual matters to reach an agreement on the entire package of proposals. I congratulate the parties for the perseverance they showed throughout the process. Their recommendations constitute the vast majority of the contents of this bill.

Overwhelmingly, the parties agreed that the existing code has worked well and that it could form a basis and a foundation for the new and improved system. In particular, the parties agreed that the time had come for a new approach to the regulation of workplace health and safety. This agreement is reflected in Bill C-12, which is based on the philosophy that the proper role of the Government of Canada is to empower workers and employers to assume responsibility for the regulation of their own workplace.

In general, the government's role should be that of a guide rather than an interventionist. Workers and employers should be given the power and discretion to identify and resolve new and emerging health and safety hazards.

I have no doubt that this is the right approach. The Government of Canada can only empower the parties rather than impose solutions from above.

This approach is evident in the amendments to the powers and duties of existing workplace health and safety committees. These bodies will be required to regularly inspect their workplaces and to deal with problems and issues as they arise, reducing the need for direct government intervention.

In terms of dispute resolution, management and employee representatives of the committee will be responsible for investigating all disagreements and conflicts. Only when the parties cannot reach an agreement will a government health and safety officer become involved.

This is an example of the trust of the Liberal Government of Canada in the ability of employers and employees to work together. It demonstrates that the Government of Canada is committed to regulating more intelligently, regulating in a way that ensures the continued health and safety of everyone.

Through Bill C-12 the Government of Canada empowers workers and employees by introducing health and safety policy committees. These committees will complement the work of the existing workplace health and safety committees. Their role will be to deal with matters such as accident prevention, education of employees and the acquisition of protective equipment.

The role of the Government of Canada in establishing these new committees is to ensure that health and safety issues make their way into the corporate agenda and are addressed at the highest possible level. For companies which operate in more than one location, the committees will also ensure some level of consistency across the different sites.

Although I hope that all companies will take advantage of this promising new mechanism, the policy committee will only be mandatory for firms with more than 300 employees. This represents a small number of employers in the federal sector, but actually accounts for 85% of all employees.

Although Bill C-12 represents a new approach to health and safety regulations and a significant realignment of the roles and responsibilities of the key players, it is clear that the Government of Canada is firmly committed to existing rights and is doing its utmost to strengthen workplace health and safety.

In the case of the right to refuse dangerous work, this commitment means strengthening and clarifying the rights of both employers and employees. For example, all employees prevented from working as a result of an employee exercising the right of refusal will be paid until the end of their shift, whereas the employee exercising the right of refusal will be paid until the matter is resolved.

The Government of Canada is also mindful of the rights of employers, who will be given the discretion to discipline a worker when the right to refuse is abused or when it is found that a frivolous claim has been made.

In an area as important as workplace health and safety, the Liberal government has shown that it is not prepared to stand still. As promised in the red book, it is moving forward with regulatory reform which is both economically and socially progressive.

Five features of the bill seem to be particularly important and necessary. First, as a result of this bill, local health and safety committees will be mandated to conduct regular workplace inspections and will be given increased powers in dealing with complaints. This will permit the parties to identify and solve problems swiftly as they arise. This will be done with government guidance and it will enhance the role of the health and safety committees.

Second, a management and an employee member of the committee will be empowered to investigate any unresolved complaint. If they find a violation of the code, they will ask the employer to give a written assurance of compliance. If they find an immediate danger, they will shut off the machine or otherwise stop the activity. If they cannot agree on a solution, a government health and safety officer will be asked to intervene.

Third, a health and safety policy committee at the corporate level will be required for enterprises with 300 or more employees. This committee will address a range of issues such as injury prevention initiatives and awareness activities. This will apply to over 80% of the federally regulated workforce, many of whom have already voluntarily established such committees.

Fourth, the Liberal government is committed to help establish family friendly workplaces. This bill provides additional protection for pregnant and nursing employees. If an employee has reason to believe that an activity or condition, such as exposure to a chemical, will adversely affect her, her fetus or her child if she is breast feeding, she will be able to withdraw from the work until she has had the opportunity to consult her doctor. Under existing legislation the employee has to continue working until she receives a medical certificate.

Fifth, the bill provides for regulation that will require every employer to develop, establish and monitor in consultation with the workplace health and safety committee at both the workplace and corporate levels, a preventative program appropriate to the size of the workplace and the nature of the hazards.

These are all important changes. They reflect the Government of Canada's commitment to occupational health and safety and its confidence in the willingness and ability of labour and management to solve their problems in a mutually beneficial manner.

In closing, I want to emphasize that we take our consultative obligations in drafting this bill very seriously. It was lengthy, involved and extensive and included relevant agencies of the Government of Canada, the major labour organizations and the major employers and employer groups. They all deserve to be commended and thanked.

My hope is that the occupational health and safety problem in this country will certainly be reduced. I believe that this bill, because it tapped the commitment and concern of social partners, is an important first step toward this goal. Let the workplace be what it is supposed to be: challenging, interesting, meaningful and conducive to good health. By acting now we can ensure that Canada has in place the type of regulatory framework we need to compete and thrive in today's economic climate.

The Government of Canada has shown that it remains committed to improving and protecting the health and safety of workers under its jurisdiction. Employers and employees have made it very clear that they are eager to take on their new responsibilities and work together. It is time that we gave them a chance.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-12, which is an act that purports to amend part II of the Canada Labour Code. It deals with occupational health and safety. Unlike parts I and III, this one also covers the federal public service.

Part II of the labour code has not been significantly updated for at least 15 years. There seems to have been a lot of suggestion that the government moved with all speed, but it has been 15 years which does not show the alacrity which was attributed to the government by the previous speaker.

A few days before dropping the writ for the 1997 general election, a bill to amend part II of the code was tabled in the House of Commons. I am sure it was not just a move to shore up Liberal support, even though it took almost another three years to bring the bill back to the House.

Employer groups and employer associations which have been involved in the lengthy consultative process now fear that if the government delays the legislation any longer, another election will be called and they will have to start all over again. There is some urgency to move ahead with this bill so that there is not the same experience as last time.

Health and safety in the workplace is the responsibility of every person on the work site. Whether it is a labour intensive industry or a high level high tech desk job, all have stress or other parts to them and health and safety factors are involved. The role of government is to set the standards and to provide a mechanism to resolve disputes when and if they arise.

Government legislation and regulations alone cannot promote a healthy workplace and prevent accidents. This involves every one of us. All of us who are involved in the workplace, in a supervisory capacity or in the actual work activity, are responsible to make sure it is as healthy and as safe as we can make it.

In November a report prepared by the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board for example showed that the province's stringent health and safety laws were doing little to curb workplace fatalities. It just goes to show that there is another element here and that is the human element; all of us have a role to play.

According to that report, British Columbians died from work related injuries at a rate of nearly three per week over the last decade. Nationally there are approximately 800,000 occupational accidents annually of which 750 are fatal. One worker is injured on the job every nine seconds of work time. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Work related accidents cost the Canadian economy $10 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. Approximately 18 million days of work were lost this way in 1997. It is a serious issue.

In any workplace if accidents are to be prevented, everyone must be involved. The more people understand about workplace hazards, the better equipped they will be to prevent injury and illness. The question then is how will the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-12 help ensure that people are better equipped to prevent accidents?

The intent of the bill is laudable but some of the provisions require closer scrutiny. That is precisely what I hope will happen as the committee delves into the details of this proposed legislation.

For example, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that companies with over 300 employees shall, they are required to form a health and safety committee as well as a policy committee. The question really arises of why the number 300 was chosen. Is that some kind of arbitrary number? What happens if a company has 299 employees? Is that a materially different company from one which has 300 employees? That is the real question. The government is not so much setting a framework as saying, “This is what you shall do; this is how you shall manage your company”.

The argument was made by the hon. member who spoke just before me that the government's role is to set standards and to provide mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. However here in this provision the government is going beyond that kind of situation and saying to the president of a company, “This is how you shall organize. This is what you shall do. These are the kinds of committees we want you to have and these are the ways in which that committee is to operate and exercise its mandate”.

Another area of concern is the lack of a second stage appeal process. While we as Reformers favour a reduction in red tape, it is important to ensure that a fair and effective appeal process be set in place. Not every decision is the right one in the first instance. There ought to be an opportunity for both management and workers to appeal a particular decision.

Under section 146.3 for example, the appeal officer's decision is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court. I think an appeals process is essential. If by some chance the officer errs, there is no recourse for the employer or the employee to challenge that ruling. It is my understanding that employer and worker groups have concerns about this particular provision. I am sure the committee will deal with this and get into it in some detail. Hopefully a resolution of this concern can be reached.

Recently a lot of attention has been focused on workplace stress. Mr. Speaker, in your role as Speaker you are subjected to all kinds of noise and conflict in this place and in your office. I am sure you would recognize only too well what stress can do to an individual.

Bill C-12 refers to workplace stress but it does not attempt to define it. That is part of the problem. What constitutes ordinary workplace stress and what constitutes exceptional workplace stress? Stress affects different people differently. Different types of employment have their own built-in stress. For example, the stress of an air traffic controller is slightly different from that of someone who cleans the latrines in the airport.

In some situations stress can lead to violence. While the bill contains a provision relating to workplace violence, it is vague and open-ended. I am sure the committee will deal with this and other areas when it studies the bill in detail.

Bill C-12 also allows for the establishment of workplace violence regulations. Are companies and their safety officers or safety committees free to develop workplace violence regulations or will the government impose them? It is a very real question. A lot of vagueness and a lot of unanswered questions need to be addressed in this section.

In January at the coroner's inquest into the tragic shooting deaths at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, employees focused attention on workplace stress and violence. The jury made 77 recommendations, including one stemming from the problems encountered by police who were not familiar with the layout of the massive facility.

That is an obvious thing that should have been looked at but it was not. These are some of the things that ought to be looked at in some detail.

While up to date information may not prevent a tragedy, it may save rescuers time and ultimately help to save lives. That is really significant.

We have to look at this as well with the firefighters. In very many instances the nature of the fire and the elements that are actually in combustion dictate the kind of retardant that is applied. The firefighter needs to know what it is that is actually burning. It is not just the fire. He has to know what kind of fire it is. Also in a case like the OC Transpo shootings, it would have been good if the police officers had known exactly where to look and where to go and did not have to waste a whole lot of time in getting there.

Those are some of the areas that we plan to address and look at in some detail. I am sure the government will go along with this as we examine the provisions of Bill C-12.

In conclusion, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board study showed that 99% of accidents are preventable. That is wonderful. If we can prevent 99% of accidents, that is great but it depends on the workers and management working together, not some government person coming in and telling them what they have to do.

The onus is on both the employers and the employees to work together on how they are going to do this. As I said earlier, the primary role of the government is not to set the standards but to provide the mechanisms and show how the mechanisms can resolve disputes.

These amendments have been in the works for almost 10 years. All sides have spent a lot of time and effort in coming up with provisions that are progressive and acceptable to the stakeholders.

We are anxious to move ahead and get this thing done so that people will be safe and healthy in the workplace.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in the House today on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code has not undergone any substantial changes for more than 15 years, as if there had been no changes in the various areas covered by the federal legislation. That is completely ridiculous. But what can one expect of the federal government, after all?

Today, the new Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, is presenting her new reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code. It was high time for this government to do something about reforming part II of the code, which has a direct impact on occupational health and safety in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Why do I say it was high time for the minister to present her reform? Because work-related accident statistics are of great concern. I shall come back to this point later.

I would nevertheless like to draw attention to the efforts the minister and her department have focused on this reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code. Her efforts are praiseworthy and it is our duty to call attention to them.

The Bloc Quebecois assumes the minister's good intentions to improve occupational health and safety in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. said, the Bloc Quebecois has done its homework as well, and has carried out a thorough examination of Bill C-12. Unfortunately, it contains several weaknesses, but I shall address tem later on in my speech.

The bill is only at second reading. The Bloc Quebecois is prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the minister and give her a chance to improve her bill. If this should not be the case, the Bloc Quebecois will have to reconsider its position, but for the time being, we are only concerned about the well-being of workers in Quebec and Canada. Bill C-12 is a good basis for discussions, but certainly not the definitive answer.

As I said earlier, the situation regarding health and safety in workplaces that are regulated by the Canada Labour Code is a serious concern. is why the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemns the government's lax approach and slowness in adjusting to the new realities of the global economy and to the growing requirements for productivity and competitiveness.

These new realities, which have had a deep impact on the workplace, have also significantly changed occupational health and safety practices.

As hon. members know, much has changed over the past 15 years in the workplace, both in Canada and in the world. Unfortunately, the federal government has let things drift along. The picture of occupational health and safety is far from rosy. Let me give you an overview.

Every year, some 800,000 people are wounded or become sick in the exercise of their duties. Of this number, over 750 die, a figure that translates to an average of three deaths a day.

In 1997 one employee in five, on average, was injured at work, a figure that amounts to an accident at the workplace every 9.1 seconds worked. One worker in 31 was injured badly enough to miss work for at least one day. This translates into an accident with time lost every 18 seconds worked.

In 1996, 38 deaths as the result of work-related illness or accident were reported in industries under federal jurisdiction. An equal number of deaths was reported in 1995. There was a death resulting from an accident on the job every seven working days, on average, or one worker in approximately 20,000 died in the performance of his duties.

The number of disabling injuries increased from 15 per million hours worked in 1995 to 15.24 for the same time in 1996. In that year, the level was not as high as the level recorded in 1994 of 15.44, and remains significantly lower than the figure for 1993 of 16.99.

In terms of economic impact, these accidents are very costly. Compensation to victims or to their families amounts to some $5 billion a year. If the indirect costs resulting from accidents are added to this, the figure doubles to some $10 billion. Members know full well that these figures do not reflect the great suffering and pain of the victims and their families.

To complete this sombre picture, who do you think are the main victims of these accidents? One would think that bad luck hounds this age group. Yes, as you have no doubt guessed, it is the young.

They are the most likely to be victims of an accident on the job, fatal or not. The highest number of accidents involving time off work occur among young people. Between 1993 and 1997, one third of accidents involving time off work for which compensation was paid involved young people between the ages of 15 and 29. In addition, the accident rate among men was more than twice that among women, 3.57% compared to 1.57% according to the 1997 data.

I have a very specific reason for saving the figures on young people until the end of this sombre description. I would like to take this opportunity to digress for a moment on the topic of orphan clauses. On October 14, I introduced Bill C-212, the purpose of which was to prohibit discriminatory clauses in the federal public service. Unfortunately the government did not wish to debate this in the House.

The effect of Bill C-212 would be to render any provision in a collective agreement concluded under certain specified acts—excluding a provision based on the seniority principle—of no force or effect where employees hired after a specified date do not receive the same employee benefits, wages or conditions of employment as those received by other employees covered by the collective agreement.

As with accidents on the job, orphan clauses, or discriminatory clauses as some prefer to call them, take a particularly hard toll on young people. These clauses are a major factor in the increase in social inequality.

Several studies have demonstrated that income inequalities in Canada are linked to wage inequalities between young and more experienced workers. Between 1981 and 1993, men aged 18 to 24 experienced a 20% drop in earnings, while men aged 45 to 54 earned 20% more.

Like work related accidents, orphan clauses are another problem that has to be remedied. They are preventing young families from providing their children with proper living conditions from a very early age.

The Canadian Institute of Child Health has made the following comment on the financial difficulties being experienced by young families:

The economic situation of young families with children is worse than was experienced by the previous generation. In 1976, a single parent with one child had to work 41 hours a week at minimum wage in order to keep the family above the poverty level. In 1993, the number of hours required had risen to 73 hours a week.

The federal government, and the Minister of Labour in particular, need to realize the long term effects of a shortsighted solution such as this, which so heavily disadvantages the young. What is even more aberrant is that the Minister of Labour and the federal government do not recognize these discriminatory clauses. Hundreds of thousands of Quebec workers coming under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code are not protected against these discriminatory clauses.

When will the government realize that opposition to orphan clauses has nothing to do with intergenerational conflict and that, instead, it is these clauses themselves that are dividing the generations?

Discriminatory clauses penalize young workers and this has major social impacts on society. The intent here is not to portray young people as victims but to take time to review the facts, which seem to go against the values of solidarity and fairness required for social cohesion.

The introduction of orphan clauses in collective agreements in the workplace leads to an equity deficit between generations and this deficit is all the more intolerable within a context where wealth is getting more scarce. More than ever, in this period of restraint, we have to show great solidarity.

If we are serious about fighting and condemning the inequity suffered by the poor, the young and the elderly among others, solidarity between generations is essential.

Let us revert to the matter at hand, Bill C-12. I was painting the sad picture of the situation of work-related accidents in Canada. Let us now take a closer look at the changes the minister intends to bring about in her reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, Bill C-12 wants to legislate in matters of health and safety for private and public sector companies under federal jurisdiction. Without getting into a comprehensive description of all the companies to which Bill C-12 will apply, we can at least indicate that it will affect the public service and crown corporations such as Canada Post or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and international and interprovincial companies active in air, rail and road transportation, pipeline transport, banks, broadcasting, uranium mining, shipping, harbours and telecommunications.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code gives workers under federal jurisdiction basic rights, for example the right to know about hazards in the workplace, the right to be involved in eliminating these hazards, and the right to refuse dangerous work.

Part II also defines the role of the safety and health committees, and the roles and responsibilities of the health and safety officers.

Finally, Part II sets out procedures to determine whether there is a real danger when a worker refuses to work.

Let us now have a look at the changes Bill C-12 makes in Part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Let us start with the local occupational safety and health committees. Their mandate was to inspect the workplaces. Now, they will also have to investigate and settle complaints. If the committee cannot get both parties to agree, a health and safety officer will step in to try to settle the dispute.

Another change is the new policy health and safety committees that will be set up in companies with more that 300 employees. An example of their activities will be the development of programs for the prevention of health and safety hazards in the workplace. In addition, they will be able to investigate, conduct studies and inspect the workplace. Finally, they will evaluate workers' protective equipment.

Another major change in this reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code is a change in the right to refuse to perform dangerous work. Under the new provisions, an employee who considers his rights infringed will be entitled to select anyone in the workplace. This person will be able to participate in the investigation in the absence of a member of the occupational safety and health committee. In addition, as was the case previously, employees exercising the right to refuse to work because they deem the work too dangerous will be paid for their shift or for the usual work period.

On the other hand, if one party gives up the right to attend an investigation, the employer may take disciplinary measures against the employee abusing the right to refuse dangerous work, solely so as not to delay an employer's investigation.

The employee facing disciplinary measures may file an appeal with either the Canada Industrial Relations Board or the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

The other noteworthy change introduced by Bill C-12 concerns the appeal and review process. In fact, a position of appeals officer will be created and, as a result, the appeal process will be limited to a single stage.

Appeals from health and safety officers who concluded that there was no danger in the workplace will now be heard by a technical expert. This means that the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Staff Relations Board will no longer hear complaints relating to disciplinary measures taken in exercising rights under the Canada Labour Code. However, these two boards will continue to hear cases relating to the right to refuse dangerous work.

The bill contains new provisions to establish, through regulations, accident prevention programs in the workplace. Measures will also be taken to prevent violence in the workplace. Finally, work space ergonomics programs will be set up.

These are the main changes to part II of the Canada Labour Code that are provided for in Bill C-12.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois has certain reservations about Bill C-12. According to the Minister of Labour, the new legislation seeks, among other objectives, to make employees and employers more accountable, when it comes to making their work environment safer.

What about this government's responsibility as an employer? As if the recent blunders at HRDC were not enough, now the Minister of Labour, whose department is an integral part of Human Resources Development Canada, also wants her piece of the pie; she wants to give jobs to good friends of the party. First, they gave grants and now they are giving jobs.

Bill C-12 contains a number of provisions that create a conflict of interest or a situation where the Minister of Labour and the federal government are both employer and legislator, or both judge and jury. Such situations are found in eight clauses of the bill.

There is no way the Bloc Quebecois will ignore these flaws in the sound management of public funds and public service employees.

Party politics is no longer appropriate when it affects the health and safety of workers in Quebec and in Canada.

I have another example where the government is judge and jury, and the Minister of Labour is in complete conflict of interest. Subsection 135(3) reads as follows:

1. (3) Where the Minister is satisfied—on the basis of factors enumerated in subsection(4)—that the nature of work being done by employees at a work place is relatively free from risks to safety and health, the Minister may,—upon a request from the employer in the form and manner as prescribed from time to time by regulation—by order, on such terms and conditions as are specified therein, exempt the employer from the requirements of subsection (1) in respect of that work place.

In this clause, it is implicitly stated that the minister may request, as the employer, an order allowing an exemption from the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. This is another conflict of interest that the Bloc Quebecois feels is completely unacceptable.

There are many reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept this state of affairs. How are we to trust this government to treat its employees fairly when we see how it approached the pay equity issue with 200,000 of them. This government has shown itself to be unacceptably lax on this issue. These 200,000 public servants had to wait more than 15 years for payment.

Fortunately, with the unconditional support of the Bloc Quebecois, the 200,000 PSAC employees never lost hope in justice. Pressure from public servants and from the Bloc Quebecois won the day and we are very proud of that fact.

Today, the minister would like the Bloc Quebecois to accept similar provisions in Bill C-12. Surely she is not serious. The Minister of Labour will have to amend these clauses so that there is no longer any conflict of interest.

Here is another problem with Bill C-12, in subsection 135(2):

An employer is not required to establish a committee under subsection (1) for a work place that is on board on a ship in respect to employees whose base is the ship.

I must say I find this exemption quite amusing. In fact, it reminds me of a particular bill, Bill C-28, which was debated here in the House during the first session. Members will recall this bill that the finance minister was trying to have passed because it could presumably allow his international shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines Inc., of which he was the sole owner, to gain some tax benefits.

The bill was sponsored by the finance minister himself. Both these facts still appear to be a conflict of interest that violates the government's code of ethics, and the Bloc Quebecois had demanded some explanations, which, incidentally, never came.

Today, with Bill C-12, ships are again exempted without any explanation. Members will understand that there is every reason to wonder about this situation. To quote a proverb, once bitten, twice shy.

I can say that the Bloc Quebecois is shy about the ships of this government and its finance minister. We are very anxious to discuss the matter with the minister, before the committee, to ask her some questions about this exemption.

Another section of Bill C-12 raises several questions. It is subsection 137.1(3), and I quote:

137.1 (3) The manner of selection of the members of the Commission, other than the chairperson and an alternate chairperson, and the term of office of the members of the Commission shall be such as may be prescribed.

What is involved here is the term of office and the manner of selection of the members of the coal mining safety commission. If members reread the subsection carefully, some questions will surely come to mind. Why give a very special status to the chairperson and the alternate chairperson? Why not include in the bill the term of office and the manner of selection of these two officials?

Well, once again, welcome to the land of the cronies of the Liberal Party of Canada. These are other political appoinments for the government's friends.

While the Bloc Quebecois is familiar with this kind of appointment, which is common practice for this government, we will put their last-ditch energy into making sure that this process is excluded not only from Bill C-12, but from all other bills the government will introduce that will include patronage appointments, like this one does at subsection 137.1(3).

From now on, these practices must be a thing of the past. Time has come for a shift, away from Liberal petty politics and toward political transparency.

If the Minister of Labour wants the Bloc Quebecois to support the reform she is proposing to Part II of the Canada Labour Code, these patronage appointments must be eliminated. Otherwise, our party will have to reconsider its position.

This new reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code includes a revision of the monetary penalties imposed on any person who commits an offence. The penalties are much harsher, and the Bloc Quebecois wholeheartedly agrees with that, especially if we take into account the fact that, every year, in Canada, 800,000 persons suffer work related injuries or sickness, 750 of whom died. This represents three death a day on average.

In light of these frightening statistics, the government should send a clear message to those who do not comply with the Canada Labour Code and tell them that there might be a high price to pay for their offence. That being said, whether or not the minister gave herself the appropriate means to make sure that the offenders understand the message remains to be seen. It is not very clear.

Subsection 154(1) provides that, and I quote:

If a person is convicted of an offence under this Part on proceedings by way of summary conviction, no imprisonment may be imposed as punishment for the offence or in default of payment of any fine imposed as punishment.

What happens when the person who has committed an offence and is convicted does not pay the fine? This person does not pay the fine and is not sent to prison either. Where is the punishment then? Does that mean that if one does not pay a fine, that person is subject to no other penalty? This certainly is a funny way to enforce the law.

I would like to come back to the matter of financial penalties. We all know that the Bloc Quebecois is a political party that supports all practical and straightforward measures. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Bloc Quebecois has an excellent suggestion for the labour minister on what she could do with the money collected from fines. Why not say in the bill that the fines collected should go directly into a fund that would be used for training and prevention programs in the various work places under federal jurisdiction. Would it not be a constructive approach?

This money would be used to train employers and employees, to give them the tools that they need to prevent work related accidents? This is a very positive approach that the labour minister cannot turn down, taking the money from the fines and establishing programs to prevent the situations that led to the violation, providing the means to prevent work related accidents, training and creating awareness among workers and employers regarding the need to work in a healthy and safe environment.

To achieve this however, the law will have to be enforced and, as I have said previously, Bill C-12 lacks clarity in this regard.

One last aspect of this bill the Bloc Quebecois is questioning is clause 132, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees. Ever since it was elected to the House, the Bloc Quebecois has always made it its duty and a priority to stand up for all women and try to improve their status, including promoting precautionary cessation of work for pregnant or nursing women.

With Bill C-12, the labour minister finally understood something had to be done for pregnant or nursing women in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. It is a start, but it is much too timid.

Quebec has always been a leader in the protection of pregnant women in the workplace. The same cannot be said of the federal government.

For years now in Quebec, under the CSST, pregnant or nursing workers who do not come under the Canada Labour Code may ask for a reassignment or precautionary cessation of work and still receive 90% of their net salary, if their work poses a risk to their health or that of the child to be born, and the employer cannot alter or change their work environment within the plant.

Section 132 of the federal act is greatly flawed. Quebec workers who come under the Canada Labour Code are not as well protected as those who come under Quebec law. Such discrepancy and two tier system are totally unacceptable.

At the federal level, as soon as an employee receives the physician's opinion, she can no longer invoke subsection 132(1), which allows a pregnant employee to ceases to perform her current job functions.

In Quebec, upon receiving a medical opinion, the employer must assign the pregnant employee to different functions posing no risk to the foetus.

If her employer cannot reassign her to another job within the period prescribed on the medical certificate, the female employee may stop working immediately and her salary for the first week is paid by her employer and afterward she gets 90% of her net salary from the CSST.

Quebec is still leading the pack on preventive reassignment of pregnant or breastfeeding female workers. What is the federal government waiting for to follow suit?

There is definitely a consensus among Quebecers and Canadians. But the minister and her government turn a deaf ear, even if some government officials are part of the consensus. Let me clarify.

In March 1998, the Université du Québec à Montréal organized a symposium on the health of working women. The event was even funded by the oh so righteous federal health department. The symposium was attended by experts and organizations from across Canada interested in occupational health and safety, and particularly in women's occupational health.

Let us be clear, the action plan developed at the symposium cannot be disregarded, as it was produced by our best experts in occupational health for women.

Let me give you a short list of participants. For Quebec: Gisèle Bourret, head of the Status of Women Division at the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec; Maria DeKoninck, professor at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval; Jocelyne Everell, union advisor at the Health, Safety and Environmental Division of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; Carole Gingras, director of the Status of Women at the FTQ; Danielle Hébert, co-ordinator of the Status of Women Division of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; Nicole Lepage, occupational health and safety counsellor, Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec; Katherine Lippel, professor in the department of law, Université du Québec à Montréal; and many others.

There were also equally credible experts and organizations from British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and even Newfoundland.

It is worth noting that Canada was represented by, among others, Diane Ponée, Director, Policy Analysis and Planning, Women's Health Bureau, Health Canada, and Michelle Simms, Policy and Program Consultant, Women's Bureau, Strategy and Coordination Unit, HRDC. This means without a doubt that the Labour Minister and this government are aware of the conclusions of the seminar. Let us talk about those conclusions.

The Action Plan that all participants signed, including Health Canada and HRDC officials, reads as follows:

In all federal and provincial jurisdictions, the legislation should provide for precautionary cessation of work for pregnant or nursing workers if their working conditions are a threat to their health or the health of their foetus or nursing infant.

Such programs should be modelled on the Quebec legislation which provides for reassignment to a job presenting no threat...They should include, whenever reassignment is impossible, the right to allowances equal to those given in the case of a disability due to an occupational injury.

Women across Canada cherish Quebec's policies on precautionary cessation of work for pregnant or nursing workers. Unfortunately, the minister will not impress the women of Canada and Quebec with clause 132 of Bill C-12.

I am not the one saying this, nor is the Bloc Quebecois. All the women of Quebec and Canada want to benefit from the progressive policies of Quebec.

We can already see the Minister of Labour and the federal government bragging about the new maternity leave under EI, saying that employees under federal jurisdiction are now very well treated.

Let us get serious. Women need at least 600 hours of work to qualify for maternity leave. Just imagine a pregnant single mother of one; she will only get between 50 and 55% of her salary, whereas she would get 90% of her net salary with the precautionary cessation of work provision of Quebec's legislation on occupational health and safety. The federal government is light-years behind Quebec.

If section 132 of Bill C-12 is not amended, the disparity of treatment between employees covered by the bill and those covered by Quebec's legislation on occupational health and safety will remain. Does the Minister of Labour, who is a woman and a mother of two, really want to perpetuate this unacceptable disparity? Why should women be the victims of the discriminatory policies of the Liberal government? I will leave the minister with that.

As you can see, Bill C-12 is far from being perfect. The minister will have to make changes to her reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code. The Minister of Labour can depend on the Bloc Quebecois for these amendments. So far, the Bloc has done its homework and it will continue to do so.

We are outlining a very positive thought process to make Bill C-12 be even more consistent with the new realities of the workplace. But we do not yet know whether the Minister of Labour will consider this or whether she will turn a deaf ear on this.

As I said at the outset, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-12 in principle. Who would be against a reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code in respect of the health and safety of the men and women who work in Quebec and Canada? Nobody. We strongly believe that Bill C-12 is not perfect, far from it, but it is a good start. It remains to be seen if the Minister of Labour will be openminded and allow the Bloc Quebecois to play a role in this reform. We will see.